Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Pete]

I think you are refering to what Einstein thought of Relativity in 1907 in making your analysis? Because the link you provided clearly makes the point that the analysis you provided is not accepted in "modern relativity"

Yes, I've [post=856313]conceded that point[/post] already (that post got a bit lost in the midst of Prosoothus's proselytising).

 

[Aer]

OK, but how about the Einstein point of view - why has it been abondoned by modern physicists?

 

[Pete]

I guess it wasn't useful any more, like Lorentzian relativity, or a scythe? I really don't know.

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

All of the evidence points to the assumption that gravitational fields propel photons, and therefore photons only travel at the speed of c relative to those gravitational fields. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I'm pretty sure that the photon must have a non-standard gravitational field. This "non-standard" gravitational field interacts with the external gravitational field the photon is travelling through to exert a force on the photon if it is travelling at a speed that is slower or faster than c relative to the gravitational field.

Does this mean that a photon has a dipolar gravitational field? Not necessarily, but it's the model that makes the most sense at the moment. If you have an alternative model that would explain how a particle could be accelerated in a uniform gravitational field, then please share.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, All of the evidence points to the assumption that gravitational fields propel photons....

You probably don't know it, but Pete and Aer are having a high level discussion, well above my understanding, in which your gravity may not even exist. I don't want to interupt them seriously but can you cite even one piece of journal published evidence that you are referring to?

 

[Prosoothus]

Aer,

Sounds a lot like the "local ether" model of wave propogation. When did you come up with your so-called theory?

Over a year ago.

Most of the conservative scientists on this forum are desperately trying to avoid one fundamental question: Why do photons travel at c?

If photons are at rest until acted upon by an outside force, then one can claim that photons don't have an aether, or a medium of travel/propulsion. But if photons don't have an aether, how the hell are they travelling at c? Why aren't they just "floating around"? Shouldn't they have to "push" against something to reach the speed of c?

Once you assume that photons must have an aether in order to have a constant speed of c, the mission is to find this aether. Since the MM experiment proved that the omnidirectional speed of light is constant on the surface of the Earth, it can only lead to two rational conclusions:

1) The Earth's gravitational field is dragging the aether around with it, and the speed of light is only equal to c relative to this aether.

2) The Earth's gravitational field is directly influencing the photons, so the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the field.

Although, all "aetherists" assume #1, there is experimental evidence against it. As Billy suggested, if the medium of travel/propulsion of light is a dynamic aether, then this aether would drag light, which would change the apparent location of stars being viewed by an observer on the surface of the Earth. Since there is no evidence to support this phenomenon, model #1 is likely wrong.

In model #2, light is would not be influenced at all by (uniform) gravitational fields unless it was travelling at a speed other than c relative to the field. The (uniform) gravitational field would only accelerate/decellerate a photon's speed to c, but would not change its path. In other words, where a uniform gravitational field is present, space would determine the photon's path, while the gravitational field would determine the photon's speed.

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

I don't want to interupt them seriously but can you cite even one piece of journal published evidence that you are referring to?

The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Unless, of course, you believe in length contraction, time dilation, and leprechauns.

 

[Billy T]

The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment....

Strange! Results M&M type experiments and several others are generally accepted by most physicist as showing that not only does the speed (constancy is observed) of light imply c does not depend upon motion thru an aeither, but also that it does not depend upon many other things, like path length (rejects "tired light" crackpots explanation of the red shift) or the strength of the gravity field were the experiment was done. Earth's gravity field is a vector field with different strength in different locations and when sun's and moon's gravity is considered, it is even modulated at each location. I asked you for a published reference that states that the speed of light does depend upon the strength of the gravity field and you give one that shows it does NOT!!!! :bugeye:

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

Strange! Results M&M type experiments and several others are generally accepted by most physicist as showing that not only does the speed (constancy is observed) of light imply c does not depend upon motion thru an aeither, but also that it does not depend upon many other things, like path length (rejects "tired light" crackpots explanation of the red shift) or the strength of the gravity field were the experiment was done. Earth's gravity field is a vector field with different strength in different locations and when sun's and moon's gravity is considered, it is even modulated at each location. I asked you for a published reference that states that the speed of light does depend upon the strength of the gravity field and you give one that shows it does NOT!!!!

I see you didn't understand my reply. :bugeye:

If you were to assume that length contraction and time dilation do not exist, then there is no other explanation for the fact that the omnidirectional speed of light is constant on the surface of the Earth then that the speed of light is directly, or indirectly, linked to gravitational fields. Also, if the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the gravitational field through which it is passing, then the average speed of light in an object that is moving through a gravitational field would decrease resulting in the reactions in that object to slow down. So even the decreased tick rate of atomic clocks that are moving through the Earth's gravitational field can be used as proof between the link between the speed of photons and the gravitational field.

In summary, I'm stating that the very same experimental evidence that relativists use as proof of relativity can be used as proof of the linkage between the speed of light and gravitational fields. It all depends on which model you choose to believe.

Note: You seemed to imply in your response that you believe that I think that the strength of the gravitational field determines the speed of light. This is not the case. The speed of light is always equal to c relative to the gravitational field, regardless of the strength of the field. However, it is possible that a stronger field will accelerate/decelerate a photon faster to c than a weaker field.

 

[Billy T]

...If you were to assume that length contraction and time dilation do not exist, then there is no other explanation for the fact that the omnidirectional speed of light is constant on the surface of the Earth then that the speed of light is directly, or indirectly, linked to gravitational fields. ...

I asked for a published reference that supports your claim that many experiments prove the speed of light changes with the strength of the gravity field. I ask again (third time). Perhaps you do not understand this question/request? To help you with your understanding:

A published reference is something of the form: Modern Physics, Vol. 33 # 4 pp34-45.

It definitely is not of the form: "Assume several well accepted facts are wrong, then I can interpret the M&M experiment as supporting my view."

Recall several post back, you said:

Billy T, All of the evidence points to the assumption that gravitational fields propel photons....

All I am asking for is one published report - that should be easy if your just quoted statment were true.

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

"Assume several well accepted facts are wrong, then I can interpret the M&M experiment as supporting my view."

More like: "Assuming one assumption is wrong, then the results of the MM experiment support my theory."

You're making the mistake in assuming that the principle of invariance of light is a fact. IT IS NOT. It's only an assumption that has only been tested in an object that is stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. Your overgeneralization is similiar to me dropping a rock on my foot and concluding that 10 m/s^2 is a universal constant everywhere in the universe.

Perhaps you do not understand this question/request? To help you with your understanding:

A published reference is something of the form: Modern Physics, Vol. 33 # 4 pp34-45.

Well, I don't know if there are any "published references" that contain the results of the MM experiment, or data showing the decreased tick rates of clocks that are moving through gravitational fields. If there aren't, I guess relativity must be true, right?

 

[MacM]

Prosoothus,

I strongly recommend you read the following:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/

An explanation of the invariance of light which does not require any relativity as a consequence.

 

[Physics Monkey]

I admit to having not read the book you reference MacM, but I will venture an opinion anyway because I feel the book is likely bogus for very simple reasons that I know explain. It is a simple mathematical fact Maxwell's equations, the equations that govern light propagation, are invariant under the Lorentz transformation and not the Galilean transformation. Maxwell's equations are amply confirmed in every respect. The very precise predictions they make are used in every aspect of modern technology and as the foundation for extremely predictive advanced physical theories of nature. I question then how light can be explained or understood in terms of Galilean transformations when these transformations are not a part of Maxwell's equations. I emphasize that this is not some confusion about observers and velocities but a simple mathematical fact: the Galilean transformation and Maxwell's equations are mathematically incompatible. I look forward to your reply.

 

[MacM]

I admit to having not read the book you reference MacM, but I will venture an opinion anyway because I feel the book is likely bogus for very simple reasons that I know explain. It is a simple mathematical fact Maxwell's equations, the equations that govern light propagation, are invariant under the Lorentz transformation and not the Galilean transformation. Maxwell's equations are amply confirmed in every respect. The very precise predictions they make are used in every aspect of modern technology and as the foundation for extremely predictive advanced physical theories of nature. I question then how light can be explained or understood in terms of Galilean transformations when these transformations are not a part of Maxwell's equations. I emphasize that this is not some confusion about observers and velocities but a simple mathematical fact: the Galilean transformation and Maxwell's equations are mathematically incompatible. I look forward to your reply.

I can only point out that this is the work of a NASA, Phd, Physicist and he mathematicallys supports his work, including explanations involving Maxwell, etc.

It would seem that professionals should find this interesting if not challenging. Rather than just thumbing their noses and refusing to even look at the concept based on faith, assumptions but actually scrutinize the mathematics and its consequences.

 

[Physics Monkey]

Unfortunately I can't speak with your physicist, and I'm not sure what exactly of your claims he is supporting. Some clarification might be helpful to me if you have the time since I'm new to the community. It seems to me that if he is proposing describing light in all regimes using Galilean transformations and Maxwell's equations simultaneously, then something is very wrong. Go to any PhD physicist you want, besides perhaps this fellow from NASA, and they will tell you the same thing. I can understand how in this fairly hostile intellectual environment you might feel like my assertion is simply faith based, but the reason professional physicists tend to disregard books like the one you posted is that they state things which aren't true. In this case, the book proposes to explain light using only Galilean transformations, and this is simply not possible unless Maxwell's equations are to be modified. Given the wealth of experimental evidence for the equations as they stand, any professional physicist must, as a practicing member of an experimental science, proceed with tremendous skepticism. If I understand you correctly, you see this as faith, but I and most of the rest of the physics community see it as belief in a self consistent and massively successful theory.

 

[MacM]

Unfortunately I can't speak with your physicist, and I'm not sure what exactly of your claims he is supporting. Some clarification might be helpful to me if you have the time since I'm new to the community. It seems to me that if he is proposing describing light in all regimes using Galilean transformations and Maxwell's equations simultaneously, then something is very wrong. Go to any PhD physicist you want, besides perhaps this fellow from NASA, and they will tell you the same thing. I can understand how in this fairly hostile intellectual environment you might feel like my assertion is simply faith based, but the reason professional physicists tend to disregard books like the one you posted is that they state things which aren't true. In this case, the book proposes to explain light using only Galilean transformations, and this is simply not possible unless Maxwell's equations are to be modified. Given the wealth of experimental evidence for the equations as they stand, any professional physicist must, as a practicing member of an experimental science, proceed with tremendous skepticism. If I understand you correctly, you see this as faith, but I and most of the rest of the physics community see it as belief in a self consistent and massively successful theory.

Again you are making assumptions without having actually read the material. ExtinctionShift is completely plausiable and resolves numerous "counter Intuitive" consequences of relativity.

 

[Billy T]

...You're making the mistake in assuming that the principle of invariance of light is a fact. IT IS NOT. It's only an assumption that has only been tested in an object that is stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. ...

You can't assume that c is not constant to re-interpret the M&M expseriment so that you can then conclude from M&M's results that c is not constant!

As far as measuring the velocity of light only on the surface of the Earth, are you not aware that the astronaughts left laser reflectors on the moon more than a decade ago? Time of flight measurements using them are routine. Do you not know that the Pioneer sattelite is far beyond Pluto's orbit, yet routinely sending electromagnetic signals back to Earth and using the Doppler shift of them to get the speed, which can be integrated to give the distance etc.

Only with very extensive ignorance can you make the claims you do.

I am still asking for one published reference - You claimed "all experiments" support you personnel theory about gravity pushing or slowing down light.

None do!

 

[Physics Monkey]

I have to agree with Billy T here. It is simple logical fallacy to assume what you are trying to prove. Also, as a practicing physicist, I am totally unaware of any evidence linking the propagation of light to the gravitational field. Certainly the curvature of spacetime can affect the motion of light, but it isn't why light moves. The motion of light is governed by Maxwell's equations as I discuss in my previous posts. No mention of gravity is neccessary or made. This theory is extremely accurate and predictive, why would we abandon it without good evidence?

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM, how do you have intuition about what traveling near the speed of light is like? If by counter-intuitive you mean that near the speed of light things don't behave like they do when speeds are slow then I agree. But why should intuition in one regime necessarily apply to another? Things that are very small also don't behave like everyday things, this is quantum mechanics. Is that wrong too? In a precise mathematical sense, special relativity is a simpler description of the world than Galilean relativity. It is also an accurate and predictive theory.

 

[Prosoothus]

Billy T,

You can't assume that c is not constant to re-interpret the M&M expseriment so that you can then conclude from M&M's results that c is not constant!

I don't know why you are being so stubborn. The near null results of the MM experiment can lead to two conclusions:

1) The omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c for all inertial observers everywhere in the universe. This would require the introduction of two new paraphysical phenomena into physics: length contraction and time dilation.

Or

2) The omnidirectional speed of light is only equal to c for an observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field. Therefore there is a link between gravitational fields and the speed of light.

As any rational person can see, it is unscientific to jump to the conclusion that since the omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c for an observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field, that it must be equal to c for all inertial observers.

So tell me, if relativity can use the results of the MM experiment as proof that the speed of light is equal to c for all inertial observers, why can't I use the experiment as proof that the omnidirectional speed of light is only equal to c for an observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field?

If relativity can use the decreased tick rates of atomic clocks circling the Earth as proof of time dilation, why can't I use the decreased tick rate as proof that the speed of light has changed inside the clock?

As far as measuring the velocity of light only on the surface of the Earth, are you not aware that the astronaughts left laser reflectors on the moon more than a decade ago? Time of flight measurements using them are routine. Do you not know that the Pioneer sattelite is far beyond Pluto's orbit, yet routinely sending electromagnetic signals back to Earth and using the Doppler shift of them to get the speed, which can be integrated to give the distance etc.

First of all, since the Moon is at a fixed distance from the Earth, and the Earth is at a fixed distance from the Sun, the speed of light coming to/from the moon, and the speed of radio waves travelling through the Sun's gravitational field, would be equal to c relative to the Earth. And if they were not, how exactly would you determine that they are not? For example, if there were radio waves coming from Pluto to Earth that are travelling at c - 10,000 m/s how would you prove it? Wouldn't you just conclude Pluto was just a little farther away?

Only with very extensive ignorance can you make the claims you do.

Spare me your personal remarks. Give me a list of experimental evidence proving that SR is valid, and I'll show you that very same evidence can be even more easily interpreted to prove that SR is not valid.

I am still asking for one published reference - You claimed "all experiments" support you personnel theory about gravity pushing or slowing down light.

Light is propelled by gravity

So.....

The speed of light travels at a constant speed through a gravitational field

So.....

A) An observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field will measure the omnidirectional speed of light to be constant. (Proof: The MM experiment can be interpreted as experimental proof that light is propelled by gravity)

B) The average speed of light decreases in an object that is moving through a gravitational field. This causes the electromagnetic reactions in that object to slow down (Proof: The decreased tick rates of atomic clocks, and the decreased decay rate of muons that are moving through the Earth's gravitational field can both be interpreted as experimental proof that light is propelled by gravity).

Now do you understand why I said that the experiments support my theory. Is the step-by-step logic I gave above sufficient for you, or do you want me to publish it somewhere?